OP, this is an apparent update to the original article done by Sarah Smith.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/education/article207914819.html
She actually puts in a small amount of effort in this article. Her main argument is still there needs to be more minorities at TCU. But this time she supports her argument by referencing differences in ethnic percentages between TCU and the city and the country at large. Basically, it is the systemic argument that all institutions should have mirror percentage breakdowns as the society at large. She has a few quotes from various people that confirm this reality.
The article still leaves a whole lot to be desired and missed an opportunity to discuss a number of issues that would have been constructive and more meaningful.
1. An in-depth look at why efforts to recruit more black students have not been successful. This should not just be the efforts of the school but also from the perspective of the student. For example, there may be other things at work that make it easier for certain schools to recruit more black students than others that are more due to things like location.
2. Why can't a private institution be whatever percentage white or whatever ethnicity or race it chooses to be? Why must it conform to the systemic percentage dogma? For example, why is it not ok that a school could be 100% white? Why must all schools and institutions have a similar percentage breakdown to be deemed good and virtuous? Do these rules extend to historically black colleges or other religious universities? Are they showing bias and hypocrisy by targeting only the "perceived white ones?"
3. Where should diversifying a school by ethnicity/race rank in the list of important factors for a school to focus its limited time and resources on? Can opinions vary? Should diversifying a school by ethnicity even be a standard? Is it ok to disagree with the dogma that ethnic diversity is a strength? What if a school chose to make its standard, diversity of thought or getting the highest scoring candidates possible or diversifying based on geography instead of race?
4. What about the paradox of stating that a great school like TCU is expensive but if the costs were reduced the school may no longer be great? After all, those high costs helped make the school great in the first place. Or if you are only reducing the costs for minority students to create this systemic percentage utopia and then by default having to raise the costs of tuition on the other white students, are you really creating a fair system or are you simply replacing one perceived problem with another?
Unfortunately, we didn't get to read about any of these things. Perhaps these are things that have never occurred to Sarah or maybe she has some editorial constraints. Regardless, an opportunity was missed.